There is a page on DeltaNet that explains what's being done.



Oh, you want to know where it is? ;-) Go to the IFS page, scroll down and look for "Jan 2011 Fleet Update" then scroll down again, there is a "Click Here" right after the IFS January Fleet Update, it details each type and what's going to be done.

There is actually a lot of interesting information on DeltaNet, it's just a matter of finding it.

 

Are these the sounds of hell freezing over?

Carl

 

I can't believe the teeth-gnashing over this comm. He also didn't mention a host of other things like pensions (OMG he's going to support taking them away!!)

Ya'll are giving yourselves helmet fires......

 

Its not THAT cold!......Yet!

When you agree with something I said....That will be the sound of hell freezing over!

 

I agree with you a lot...like when you said this:

It's official now!

Carl

 

I wish I could reconcile this as simply as you and our LEC reps have done. ALPA national has a problem of conflict of interest in my opinion. At the very least, they have a huge appearance of a conflict. Many of the ALPA apologists around here have been saying we shouldn't worry because DALPA is the one that will negotiate our contract and DALPA has Scope as a top priority. Now we have the new DALPA chairman not mentioning Scope. And, we now have LEC reps defending the DALPA chairman for NOT mentioning scope.

Until this is rectified, DALPA now looks like they agree with ALPA with regard to scope being a "complicated" issue that needs to be viewed in the context of "national unity." This troubles me greatly. Call it a helmet fire if you want, but will you be the same guy that's going to be screaming about getting furloughed when the next scope sale happens? And will you be the same guy that will send hate out to the "senior pilots" for not caring about scope again?

Carl

 

Kewl. I need some good reading.

 

I guess I got hung up what I thought you meant WRT the "accuracy" of ALPA's (or anyone's for that matter) EF&A because by its very nature its analysis is short term and extremely static when it comes to something as operationally dynamic as outsourcing half your flights to a convoluted matrix of ACMI RFP low bidders.

The paragraph below was what I was mostly referring to:

The way I read that came across as you basically saying that ALPA/DALPA have accurately weighed the full impact of outsourcing. Not the "we make X per hour and they make X per hour and the difference is X per hour" of course they get that accurate. How could they not. But its the other variables that I think, upon further review, they get an epic fail for misjudging. Not only operationally as previously discussed, but when the so called experts do their super secret drink your ovaltine ninja math and then think they come up with a value for the "savings" of outsourcing, and armed with that "knowledge", they then derive that it will be good for the pilot group and the company, and then, almost immediately in some cases, we see the entire industry reverse course because their recent decision has pooped the bed. The company bleeds, hard. The pilots endured thousands upon thousands of furloughs and downgrades. The company bought multibillion dollar high and sold pennies on the dollar low. And its not that they got it wrong, because anyone can get something wrong. Its that they all got it so terribly wrong precisely after the "trust us, we're EF&A/MBA's" lecture of how us peons could never fathom the sheer genius of their industry prognostication in the first place and then still proceed to keep doing the exact same thing today!

Yeah 76 is the new 50, but other than that its the same basic miscalculation and the company is in bed with common type 118 seat operators (one who also flies 150 seaters) and others with firm orders for semi-next gen 100 seaters. After the shellacking they just got on their less than stellar judgement call, the answer of the company seems to be that had they had those magical additional 26 seats everything would be alright, and the national union that prefers to barely if at all even address the issue while implying that it will take care of itself because the market forces of the smaller RJ's is playing out...at the same time they run huevos to the wall on the maximum number of larger RJ's.

Outsourcing the bottom half of the company was an epic fail, so the solution is 76 is better than 50, move along, nothing to see here?

And all of this, all of it, was at one time endorsed by the company bean counters and ALPA's EF&A. They both got it wrong, by the billions and billions of dollars, and so IMHO neither of them should be viewed with anywhere near the same level of credibility they both once commanded.

If airline managers can't manage their own airline, they have no business in the business. If pilot leadership can't realize that section one trumps every single issue, not because it is more important per say, but because it in essence is every other issue, how can they be trusted to protect careers and "the profession" in the first place?

It isn't even about Monday morning quarterbacking, although I realize that's how it may come across. But it is about admitting where we screwed up, collectively as an industry, a company and a group because if they (management) won't, and/or if we won't admit that the MBA's and EF&A's were wrong about outsourcing, and they got it as wrong as they did with the 50 seater, what is going to happen with the current "armada" of larger outsourced jets and their up to 118 seat common types?

Management: use your "executive talent" to run a real airline, not a virtual one, or you by default don't know what you're doing.
Pilot leadership: with all due respect, its about the jobs, stupid. No matter how much the "bargaining credit" is, we are still burning the furniture to heat the house when we allow it.

So anyway sailing, my original rantishly sounding reply to you wasn't aimed at you but at the notion that EF&A and the beancounters get outsourcing wrong, don't want to admit it, and still say "trust me I'm a doctor" almost as if we didn't notice just how wrong they got it. That's all.

 

I made more than a 19 year US Air 320 Capt at year 4 at Delta.

So glad we did not merge with US Air.

 

Carl,

I just see it was a one page intro message, not a manifesto on the policy of the MEC Chairman.

And the policy of the MEC Chairman's is only what the MEC Reps direct and allow. Any failing of the MEC is that of the Reps and what they allowed a strong willed Chairman to do.

If you don't like what your (DTW?) Reps are doing you should have them recalled, or voted out of office. They did that in NYC, the process does work.

Are you going to give the new MEC a chance or are we going to crucify the guy and the entire process in favor of a bunch of angry men with no real plan because he didn't put Scope in bold at the top of his first communique?

Talking tough is easy, getting the work done and building consensus in a democratic body takes more than screaming council updates and pounding ones shoe on the table.